Dumbest Global Warming Scare-Story Of The Week
First, I give you the headline:Â STUDY: Air Pollution Dimming World’s Skies (as published in the Charlotte Observer’s print edition on 3/13/09)
Now the lead paragraph:
The skies are dimming, for most of the world. Increases in airborne pollution have dimmed the skies by blocking sunlight over the past 30 years, researchers report in Friday’s edition of the journal Science.
And now the most ridiculous statement from the Associated Press that I have seen in quite some time (which doesn’t take much).
They reported that dimming is occurring everywhere except Europe, where declines in pollution have resulted in brighter skies.
REALLY? So declines in pollution have brightened Europe’s skies, but the non-industrialized continent of Africa has higher “global dimming” than Europe??  That stretches the logic of man, weather and physics.
If Europe has been soooo good in reducing their polution, then the skies over Moscow should be experiencing brighter skies. And what about Africa? Is non-existent industrialization in Africa resulting in an increase in “global dimming”?  That should shoot to hell the Global Warming fanactics, eh?
The study does note brighter skies in Europe, but the AP is the one that editorializes as to the reason being “Europe’s declining pollution.”
MSM Bias — Always on display.  Global Warming Scaremongering — Never too far behind.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
27 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I’m not sure how you can think that’s counter-intuitive. Less pollution should result in brighter skies, shouldn’t it?
Comment by Levi — March 14, 2009 @ 12:27 pm - March 14, 2009
Levi-
On the moon, yes. Where there is no moving atmosphere. You are obviously forgetting about this strange thing in the Earth called W-I-N-D.
Comment by GayPatriot — March 14, 2009 @ 1:00 pm - March 14, 2009
Oh yeah, and the AP article EDITORIALIZES the reason for Europe’s “less dimming skies.” The study, if you read it, does not conclude a reason.
I thought the AP was a NEWS organization, not an OPINION organization.
Comment by GayPatriot — March 14, 2009 @ 1:01 pm - March 14, 2009
Is non-existent industrialization in Africa resulting in an increase in “global dimming�
From ‘corrosion-doctors.org’, data apparently taken from the EIA:
Nitrogen dioxide levels in Capetown, South Africa, for instance, were significantly higher than those measured in Calcutta, and surpassed the World Health Organization’s annual mean guideline for air quality standard of 50 micrograms per cubic meter.
To simply tar the whole of Africa as non-industrialized is suspect at best.
Comment by Scottland — March 14, 2009 @ 1:13 pm - March 14, 2009
and, y’know, burning down rainforest for settlement, grazing or agricultural areas isn’t going to be environmentally friendly.
and if you turn those trees into charcoal for fuel, thats another level of treatment that releases air pollution.
old, poor quality cars that run on leaded fuel are going to be a problem.
ooh, heres a site about indoor air pollution in Africa:http://www.rff.org/Publications/WPC/Pages/09_15_08%20Indoor%20Air%20Pollution%20and%20Africa%20Death%20Rates.aspx
Comment by Scottland — March 14, 2009 @ 1:22 pm - March 14, 2009
Article from the UN about deteriorating air quality in African cities:
http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=483&ArticleID=5317&l=en
Comment by Scottland — March 14, 2009 @ 1:24 pm - March 14, 2009
Why not? Fires are natural. Changes in landscape are natural. Can you even define “environmentally friendly”?
Here’s what’s really stupid and unscientific about the above ‘reporting’: If it’s true, IT SHOULD LEAD TO LESS GLOBAL WARMING. You might even call it a possible cure for global warming. Global warming is caused by sun’s energy hitting the earth. The majority of it is light. Even the enviro-wackos admit that, if we were to build a very limited light shield in space, blocking no more than an imperceptible 1% of the sun’s light, it would rapidly cure global warming. If the atmosphere is changing so that it reduces the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth: it’s a good thing. It inherently works *against* (not for) global warming.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 14, 2009 @ 2:24 pm - March 14, 2009
China certainly isn’t industrializing Africa, they are just taking all of its oil and burning off the natural gas.
The writer of this story should ask the scientists who warned New Oleans about a Katrina-like event what they thought of the FEMA trailer response.
I’m sure there will be a FEMA trailer for you too.
This story was the top-drawer effort by the dumb and dumber Denialists of this week.
Comment by Earl_E — March 14, 2009 @ 4:21 pm - March 14, 2009
It seems the less sun one gets the cooler is should be. Like a cloudy day. But then those that practice the religion of Global Warming do not believe the sun has any influence on the warming of the earth. It is all caused by my SUV, your cow and that guy using electricity.
Comment by bobiscold — March 14, 2009 @ 4:49 pm - March 14, 2009
bobiscold,
Water absorbs heat in the atmosphere. But that is science and we’ll stand for none of that.
Bob, don’t put yourself up on such a high horse, you are adding to the warming in your own very little way, but if you just toss that cigarette out the window along a California coast you can actually burn 100s of thousands of acres of land and actually have a measurable impact on global dimming all by your little self.
Yes Bob, you too have the power of multiplying your impact by the use of timing and technology.
Ooops, there I go again talking science. no room for science in Bob’s car. I recommend using the ashtray for your family home.
Comment by Earl_E — March 14, 2009 @ 4:56 pm - March 14, 2009
Why not? Fires are natural. Changes in landscape are natural. Can you even define “environmentally friendly�
Changes in landscape are natural? what a curious thing to say. Natural weather erosion and seasonal fires will change the landscape in their own discrete and dynamic ways, but to say that things like systematic deforestation or the cultivation of, say, mountain ranges by creating terraces of rice paddies, are natural phenomena, is dubious. Both are clear examples of the hand of man.
And a heavy hand it can be. Below is an article on the environmental impact of biofuels by leading environmentalist George Monbiot. It provides links articulating the impact of the creation of this market on the environment, amongst other things.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/mar/04/travel-and-transport-biofuels
I can’t provide a definitive answer on what ‘environmentally friendly’ is, but I think any definition would include considerations for the impact on native species in an environment, the quality of air and water as a result, and the potential utility such land use might have for the general population.
Comment by Scottland — March 14, 2009 @ 5:09 pm - March 14, 2009
I think these environmental-cases should be reminded that the only effective way to curb your carbon footprint is to die, immediately. Since they seem to care so much about reducing emissions, I welcome them to take the lead on this.
Comment by Brendan In Philly — March 14, 2009 @ 5:54 pm - March 14, 2009
#3: “I thought the AP was a NEWS organization, not an OPINION organization.”
Actually, it doesn’t even qualify as an opinion. It’s nothing more than a “wouldn’t it be great if” entry in a Leftist’s diary.
Comment by Sean A — March 14, 2009 @ 6:50 pm - March 14, 2009
This concept of “global dimming” has been in the news before. I remember watching an episode of Nova last year that discussed the issue. They appeared to place a lot of the blame on jet airplanes. The program also claimed that global dimming was the reason why the global temperatures have not risen as dramatically as predicted by the computer models! Global Dimming vs. Global Warming. Godzilla vs. the Smog Monster.
Full disclosure: I am a human-caused-global-warming-we’re-all-going-to-die skeptic.
Comment by David J — March 14, 2009 @ 7:11 pm - March 14, 2009
Levi-
On the moon, yes. Where there is no moving atmosphere. You are obviously forgetting about this strange thing in the Earth called W-I-N-D.
And you are… a scientist? There is W-I-N-D in Los Angeles, isn’t there? Why is it so smoggy there? I live in a town in Montana that has the worst air quality in the country for a few days of the year because the exhaust from our cars gets T-R-A-P-P-E-D by mountains and very low clouds. Why doesn’t the W-I-N-D blow all the smog away?
I’m pretty sure you don’t really know what you’re talking about.
Comment by Levi — March 14, 2009 @ 7:22 pm - March 14, 2009
If the atmosphere is changing so that it reduces the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth: it’s a good thing. It inherently works *against* (not for) global warming.
Even if it does counteract some global warming, the reduction in sunlight still ends up killing millions of organisms that depend on a certain amount of sunlight, which in turn kills many millions more organisms that depend on those organisms, and on and on and on. Not to mention the fact that such a shield is made up of toxins and pollutants harmful to human beings.
Just remember, even if you don’t want to buy global warming as an actual phenomenon, there are many more equally dangerous environmental problems facing the human race.
Comment by Levi — March 14, 2009 @ 7:28 pm - March 14, 2009
Say, Levi the Science Guy!
Can you explain to me how toys from China, with insignificant amounts of lead, are dangerous, but lightbulbs from China, filled with mercury, are gonna save the world?
And how does that work with this whole “buy American” angle that libs suddenly give a damn about? How do we buy American when you’ve forced us to buy lightbulbs made in China? How does that square?
You clearly aren’t and neither are most of the liberal a-holes pushing for spending more and more money without the SLIGHTEST idea why. It only matters that it’s “for the greater good”.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 14, 2009 @ 8:00 pm - March 14, 2009
That’s half-assed science, but who cares? You ASSerted you’re arrogance and, after all, THAT’S what’s important here.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 14, 2009 @ 8:02 pm - March 14, 2009
I agree with Levi…..this evening the sky and the atmosphere here began to dimm, oh about 7:30pm or so. I’ve been curled up in the basement ever since. Please tell me when it is okay and safe to return upstairs.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — March 14, 2009 @ 8:57 pm - March 14, 2009
#18
It should get brighter about 0712, Philly time.
I suppose that was pollution burn I was getting while working in the yard this afternoon. Got up to 86°F here in central Florida. Obviously global warmism is to blame.
That, or all the pollution from the ethanol in the fuel ’round here.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 15, 2009 @ 12:31 am - March 15, 2009
BTW, we’re still not getting those monster hurricanes we were promissed back in 2005:
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
Why?
And what’s the most interesting part?
Why would Algore edit his “truth”????
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 15, 2009 @ 1:02 am - March 15, 2009
Global dimming has been measured for how long?
From my perspective, man made global warming is dependent on the global dimming down of science to carry its water.
I am not sure how to write the calculus for that, but I assure you it can be done.
Comment by heliotrope — March 15, 2009 @ 10:33 am - March 15, 2009
LOL heliotrope!
For my part, I’m trying to INCREASE my carbon footprint as much as possible. I’m sure I’ll be hauled into the Environmental Court of Justice under Leader Obama…but I’m going to go down fighting!
Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — March 15, 2009 @ 11:30 am - March 15, 2009
I’m planning on smoking a few pork roasts or ribs on Earth Day. Thinking about burning some tires for light during Earth Hour.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 15, 2009 @ 4:13 pm - March 15, 2009
This video presents the definitive list of everything affected by Global Warming!
There is nothing left…. Oh Wait. There’s this!
Comment by Sonicfrog — March 16, 2009 @ 11:40 am - March 16, 2009
In the month of May, 300 meteorologists presented a paper defining and proving the plant has cooled in the last 10 years almost .75 degrees. temperatures that rose before then were attributable to prolonged and documented sun flares.
And..what say you Al Bore?
Comment by Allen Goldberg — June 24, 2009 @ 7:35 pm - June 24, 2009
What else will these greenfreaks say like our backyard BBQs are contributing to global warming? or maybe walk too much at night will dustrub the moths? WHAT KIND OF POPPYCOCK IS THIS? its as stupid as all this bunk from NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC WE DONT HAVE ENOUGH DARKNESS. WHY ARE LIBERAL SO DARN STUPID AND REDICULOUS?
Comment by Flu-Bird — September 18, 2009 @ 5:39 pm - September 18, 2009